[Standards] long specs
stpeter at stpeter.im
Wed Feb 15 16:38:27 UTC 2012
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 2/15/12 9:35 AM, Dave Cridland wrote:
> On Wed Feb 15 16:26:25 2012, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>> We have two really long specs: XEP-0045 and XEP-0060.
>> In the XMPP Council meeting just now, we talked about some ways
>> to shorten these documents.
>> The rough consensus seemed to be that for XEP-0045 we could
>> probably move the moderator/admin/owner use cases to a separate
>> spec. A quick visual comparison of the following two URLs
>> indicates that we'd cut about 40% (or more) of XEP-0045 by doing
>> Notice also the length of these sections:
>> I'd be willing to work on this, but I want to make sure that
>> people think there's value in doing so.
>> Ralph Meijer might post separately about XEP-0060.
> I'm happy with splitting these up, but can we also manage to sort
> out some related updates to XEP-0001:
> a) I'd like to be able to have "stable" and "working" copies of the
> same spec, particularly for major revisions like XEP-0045 is
> currently going through.
I think this is a matter of best practices for how the spec authors
work, i.e., placing interim versions in a source control branch.
> b) I'd like to be able to have the ability to enter a XEP that's
> been hived off from another mature XEP (or RFC) directly into
> Draft, for instance. This has come up previously.
Yes, we need that.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Standards